Jump to content

Talk:John Allen Muhammad/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Appeals

A line at the end of the second paragraph needs to be updated. "Some appeals had been made and rejected, but others remained pending." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.59.117 (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That line is extremely misleading. He had exhausted all of his appeals for the murder of Dean H. Meyers (for which he was being executed). Any remaining appeals were unrelated to his execution. Clemency from the Virginia Governor was the only remaining legal route to stay the execution. 71.59.2.102 (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Irony vs. coincidence

Entry currently says that people reacted to the "irony" of 9:11 as the time of death, in light of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. The far more proper word is "concidence." An irony is an event that was not expected to occur in light of something else; For example, if Muhammad were a follower of Gandhi and did not even know how to use a gun, his conviction and execution would have been ironic. The mere concidence between 9:11 and 9/11 is NOT something unexpected; in fact, it was a very real possibility since the execution started at 9:00. Sorry for this slight rant, but please change "irony" to "coincidence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.200.150 (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, the problem is what does the source say? I don't necessarily agree with your definition of Irony (nor wikipedia's for that matter), but you are correct, "irony" should not be conflated with "coinicidence". If the source says the term "irony" was used by stony faced officials in the presser after this wretched chap's death, then "irony" has to be used in the article. Crafty (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Understood, but the source is not being quoted here. You either need to put irony in quotes or else you need to exercise editorial judgment and use the proper word. If a source said that Bill Clinton was impeached for angering God, would Wikipedia print that Bill Clinton was impeached for angering God? An encyclopedia should use proper words for things; it should not be a Wolf Blitzer-like sounding board that simply propagates bad use of logic and language.
Let me take a look at the source and see what I can do. Crafty (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears that User:Bdb484 has removed the press conference as a primary source noting it to be "totally lame". Crafty (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Execution

Someone added text that Muhammad had chosen the electric chair as his method of execution. CNN, AP and several other news sources all say he declined to choose a method and will get lethal injection by default. I corrected the statement and added a ref to CNN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stmdc (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He was executed by lethal injection. In Virginia inmates may select either the electric chair or lethal injection. A failure to select either option defaults to the lethal injection option, and this is what happened in this case. His selection was not made at all, and therefore the law stated that lethal injection was selected for him. The Virginian Pilot, the Hampton Roads largest daily paper, stated in a concurrent story to the execution that since the change in the law in 1998, only 5 inmates have selected the electric chair, and some of them, as in the case of Earl Bramblett in 2003, selected the electric chair as a protest to point out the barbarity of executions in general. The vast majority of inmates since the selection law took effect in 1998 has been to lethal injection. Themoodyblue (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gulf War

I once read/heard Muhammad was the individual who fragged some guys in Gulf War I (Operation Desert Storm.) Can someone verify if this is the case?

I have been following this story since 2002 on an informal basis, and I have never heard or read that, even in some of the extremist articles. It seems a lot of his evil thinking and actions developed as he failed in civilian life after his time in the service. IMHO, with what we are now hearing in court from Malvo, assuming it is true, it is probably a good thing Muhammad failed as so many things, or harm to others would have been even worse than what he did accomplish stateside. Vaoverland 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the Seattle Times published an article by Alex Tizon which quotes a witness to an incident in the 1991 Gulf War (see: http://alextizon.com/articles/killers/John%20Muhammad%27s%20Meltdown.pdf on page 11):
The story, according to Berentson and at least two other former members of the 84th, was that Muhammad threw a thermite grenade into a tent housing 16 of his fellow soldiers. Thermite grenades — made of finely granulated aluminum mixed with a metal oxide, and blasting heat up to 1,200 degrees — are used to destroy equipment during battle. The attack could easily have killed or maimed, but all 16 in the tent, some coughing and choking, escaped unharmed. Berentson was in the tent. He says the grenade went off near him and near a staff sergeant with whom Muhammad had fought earlier that day. The Army's Criminal Investigation Division, Berentson says, concluded Muhammad (then named Williams) was the lead suspect. Muhammad was led away in handcuffs and eventually transferred to another company pending charges Slowjoe17 (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons that people would still be wondering why the snipers did what they did is political correctness, in this case, the mainstream media's "revisionism and sanitization of Islam", i.e., the "politically correct whitewashing of the truth aimed at pleasing Muslim groups like CAIR": "When news of the snipers' identity first broke, CNN anchors were so determined to avoid making the obvious connection to radical Islam that they called the lead sniper, a Muslim convert, by his old name. Police were looking for John Allen Muhammad, but CNN insisted on referring to him as John Allen Williams." To further quote Rehabbing The D.C. Snipers by Investor's Business Daily (which presents a "pile of courtroom evidence"): "Nowhere in [CNN's] one-hour special — promoted as "The Minds of the D.C. Snipers" — is Islamist brainwashing even hinted as a motivating factor behind their serial assassinations. Yet the evidence is overwhelming that they were on a jihad." Asteriks 17:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"On a Jihad"? You have to be kidding. The guy is a member of the Nation of Islam (which is considered a deviant sect and not Muslim by almost all Muslims, especially hardcore Salafi Jihadists), and left Tarot cards and a note that said 'I Am God', and then demanded 10 million dollars. Sounds like classic Al-Qaeda to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.220.73 (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps classic whack job (which Muhammad clearly was) using the recent Al Queda attacks as a ruse to throw suspicion off of him. Either way, it was very definitely a terrorist act. I lived in Hampton Roads at the time and I remember how terrified everyone was to be out at all. Why ever he did it, it was terrorism and cold-blooded, vicious, nihilistic murder. I am not much of a supporter of the death penalty, but if there was ever a case for it this was the one. If they had not executed this man, then they should have commuted everyone else's sentence on death row and then been done with it. Themoodyblue (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC) --

The following is an example article containing the allegation that Muhammad was suspected of fragging in GWI: http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2003/03/26/mswa_muslim_soldiers_with_attitude?page=2

also:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-md.malvo05dec05,0,4954387.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.144.103 (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, references #1 and #6 are identical.

<freund@csus.edu>

Georgia

The article says they were responsible for crimes in Georgia, but doesn't explain any details. Thus, I've removed the mentions. Superm401 - Talk 08:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of victims?

The article says 10 killed, the infobox says 16. RomaC (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the number 10 refers specifically only to the Beltway sniper victims' deaths ... and that the number 16 refers to the total number of deaths by Muhammad (that is, the Beltway sniper victims plus all of his other victims). Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
I see. I wasn't aware he had killed others before the Beltway shootings, maybe a new section "Other victims" would be appropriate? RomaC (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
15 people were killed by the two of them, 10 of them were part of the DC sniper shooting. However I don't know how many of the were actually killed by John Allen Muhammad. NWH5305 04:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Given the high rate of IP vandalism this article is attracting today, I've petitioned the WikiGods for semi-protection. May they smile upon my humble request. [UPDATE: This guy is dead.] Crafty (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your citable source? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The press is making it known.-J0hn76.102.32.59 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"What's your citable source?" Please tell me you are kidding. You might turn on the television, radio, internet or the two cans with a string held between them in your backyard. This is all over the media, there have been official press conference from the Virginia Department of Corrections and enough coverage on this to choke a horse. What on earth do you consider sufficiently citeable? Seeing the guys body in person? Themoodyblue (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
By now it's old news, but seeing it on TV doesn't really count, for wikipedia purposes anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting please...

I noticed some people edit the page into what it will be in 10 minutes but someone is reverting it...just let it be. The Fear (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I know. Too bad they don't realize they need a reliable source confirming his death. -ACDCGAMER 02:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed the reference to whoever called ACDCGAMER what they called him - that language is completely unacceptable and unnecessary. The problem probably was that a number of people were trying to update and it became a bit of a traffic jam. Insulting people that were trying to improve the article (and I notice that the loser who made the insult did not sign it) is a real jerk move and it needs to stop throughout Wikipedia. Discuss and debate, fine. Insults and ad hominem attacks are the last bastion of the weak minded. Themoodyblue (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh shut up. I wasn't the one getting high and mighty about people adding John Muhammad's time of death, after he had been confirmed dead by multiple sources. Why don't we force people to use citations when stating "the sky is blue", or "the grass is green", while we're at it.
Well, there is an essay that explains why we don't need to cite that the sky is blue, although some would say you need to do exactly that. Bzweebl (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Time of death

9:11 pm local, per news conference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.223.188 (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed now per Fox News. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, guys

For those of you who personally trolled/attacked me on my talk page, I'm sorry for that edit; I did not know that Fox News had updated their page confirming his death by the time I made that edit, because it was not updated when I checked their website a few minutes ago. Still, for pretty much 'anything' on Wikipedia, including his death, you HAVE to have some sort of reliable source that confirms that information. Even if John's death was planned already, there still needs to be a legitimate source that confirms that he actually was executed. -ACDCGAMER 03:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Gamer, please note my entry above under "reverting". Sorry some jackass decided that insulting you was the only way he can make his point. Notice that he (or she) did not sign the insult and showed themselves to be what they were calling you. To quote (well, paraphrase really) John Wayne, "Don't let the idiots on wikipedia get you down!" Themoodyblue (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

*huggles*, homo.
Also, I'm not the one who edited his talk page. I know it's hard to believe that multiple people get angry when some high and mighty creep goes around reverting their edits for no good reason, but bear with me here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.116.234 (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Meh, they're probably trolls from 4chan or something. I've dealt with MAAAAANY people like them before. On different sites. -ACDCGAMER 04:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Victims

In the Beltway sniper attack victims section there is a table of victims. More victims are listed below that. Does anyone have more info about those below the table? Did he confess to shooting them? Did he shoot them on his own, with Malvo or with someone else? Where in the US were they shot? When did those shootings occur? Did each die or survive? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I belive that the last survivor on the table was marked as being in the wrong location. I was eating in the Ponderosa where he was shot while walking out of, and this was in Richmond, Virginia, not Ashland. Just tryin to help! 98.140.188.30 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Actualy, disregard that last comment, I looked into it more and it was in Ashland, I just didn't remember it being that far away, possibly because I fell asleep on the ride home (considering that they wouldn't let us leave the resturant for hours, and I was much younger at the time).98.140.188.59 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What about the murder in Montgomery, AL? That is never mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.14.47 (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"Spree killer" or "serial killer"

"Serial Killer" appears to be a more appropriate label. Even the link to "Spree Killer" offers a definition that is inaccurate for this entry: "The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics defines a spree killing as 'killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders.'[1] According to the FBI the general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period; the lack of a cooling-off period marking the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder." In contrast, the Beltway Sniper Attacks lasted approximately three weeks, and only ended with arrests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.69.35 (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. That jumped out at me immediately when I was reading the article. Tithonfury (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem with that is that serial killers are nearly always associated with sociopathic personalities, i.e. killing as part of a weird ritual of some kind. These guys seemed to be doing it for political reasons. It appears to have been de facto terrorist attacks, and they certainly succeeded in creating terror in the public, but I don't think the media called them terrorists as such. In an odd way, their plan reminds me a little bit of John Brown, who was also delusional and also ended up getting put down, by a rope instead of a needle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps something along the lines of "politically-motivated serial killer" would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.59.117 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The media did not necessarily refer to them as "terrorists" ... but I believe that "terrorism" was one of their official legal charges. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
The Beltway Sniper Attacks lasted approximately three weeks, but there was no significant cooling-off period in between the murders. He also didn't have a type, which serial killers usually do. Among [most] experts on the topic of serial killers, he certainly wouldn't be defined as one. Spree killer fits him best, which is why I altered the lead to this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

@Flyer22. Those observations are vague and arbitrary. Please provide sources which suggest "no significant cooling-off period" and quotes of "experts" who would "certainly" not define him as a serial killer. As to having a "type" of victim, neither did David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), who, per Wikipedia, is classified as a "serial killer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.172.133 (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing vague and arbitrary about it. There are perfectly reliable sources in the Serial killer article and the lead (intro) of the Spree killer article to show you what a serial killer is. If we went by your and some others' definition of a serial killer, then there would be no such thing as spree killers; they would all be classified as serial killers by experts. But just to indulge you on whether there was a significant cooling-off period for these two individuals, all one needs to do is look at the dates of their attacks. No source is needed to establish that there was no significant/true cooling-off period between the murders. And as for "type," I said "usually" (serial killers usually have a type). Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Due to the Maintaining a difference between serial killers and serial murderers discussion on the Serial killer talk page some months ago, I changed the lead to this. As Legitimus states: The Beltway Sniper's typology is debated even by experts in the very books we're reading. The Crime Classification Manual contains them as a case study, and implies they are both spree and serial. They are mentioned directly under Spree Killer, yet the case study contains this statement: "The thirteen victims, ten dead and three wounded, qualify this crime as serial, given the cooling-off period between each of the shootings. It could also be argued that the crime was a group cause given that Malvo has been directly implicated in at least two of the shootings and the actions were committed by two individuals who arguably had similar ideologies."
I still say that there was no true cooling-off period, per my reasoning in the linked discussion, and that most experts would not classify these two as serial killers, but anyway... The current lead still labels Muhammad as a spree killer first, seeing as he is even placed under that category in the Crime Classification Manual, but also notes the seemingly apparent debate among experts about what to call him (a spree killer or a serial killer). If needed, another source could likely be found showing that some experts may disagree on which category to place him in...or that they may place him in both. It would also be a good idea to have a section on this in the article, since it is so debated by the public...or rather so many people have never heard of a spree killer. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
@Flyer22, Please, don't put words in my mouth: I'm not proposing "my" defintion of a serial killer but referring to the FBI's definition (if you would take the opportunity to fully read what I wrote). In addition, I'm not asking for "indulgence" but that you do what any half-rate scholar would do: Cite a credible source as I did. I see loads of self-referencial pronouns ("I still say...", "I believe...") but few outside sources in your argument. As to the "cooling off period" this is a very subjective term as no quantitative interval is supplied in the FBI's definition. Is it one hour? One day? Subsequently, the FBI, through a symposium composed of academia and law enforcement officials, has worked to revise this definition: "Central to the discussion was the definitional problems relating to the concept of a cooling-off period. Because it creates arbitrary guidelines, the confusion surrounding this concept led the majority of attendees to advocate disregarding the use of spree murder as a separate category. The designation does not provide any real benefit for use by law enforcement" (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder). As to "type," I supplied an example of a murderer, typicially classified as a serial killer (Berkowitz), who did not have specific "type." So there's the black swan to your premise. As to the _Crime Classification Manual_, there's a start, a credible source, good find--perhaps he could be identified as both (as Berkowitz). So, why assume the burden of proof applies to his status as "serial killer" and assume that he is a priori a "spree killer"? (Conversely, we could identify him as a "serial killer" in the first sentence and afterwards mention that some (e.g., Flyer22) might identify him as a "spree killer" but I assume you would find this presentation objectionable). Nonetheless, the FBI symposium, offered the following: "The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included:
• one or more offenders
• two or more murdered victims
• incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times
• the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder
In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:
Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events" (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.91.117 (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
IP, I do not feel that I put words into your mouth. And I use "self-referencial pronouns" such as "I still say" and "I believe" to counter what you still say and believe. You say "do what any half-rate scholar would do: Cite a credible source as I did." I did cite a credible source, as even you have admitted. My source specifically mentions John Allen Muhammad as a spree killer. Your FBI source does not. We go by WP:Reliable sources here. Not interpretations (aka WP:Original research) of what the FBI means when they define serial killer. Not to mention, the FBI is not the only authoritative source to go by with regard to defining a serial killer. As for the concept of the cooling-off period, I have never seen a reliable source define it as one hour or one day; the period is usually defined as "significant." And while what is "significant" can also be debated, it goes without saying that one hour or one day is not a significant cooling-off period for serial killers (at least it goes without saying for those who have thoroughly studied this subject). That's why the term spree killer even exists. Attendees advocating to disregard the use of "spree murder" as a separate category doesn't mean that it's been discarded. If "serial killer" was only defined as the "unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events," then the term would apply to everyone who has unlawfully killed two or more people, except for mass murderers. But that isn't the case. As I mentioned in the Maintaining a difference between serial killers and serial murderers discussion, multiple murders are often committed by gang members and mob bosses, but these people are hardly ever defined as serial killers. There's more that goes into the definition, even if arbitrary to you and some members of the FBI. And once again, as for "type," I said "usually" (serial killers usually have a type). The type factor is supported by various scholarly sources (both old and modern), so I'm not sure why you are debating that aspect of my comments again...mentioning Berkowitz yet again (this time as a "black swan to [my] premise"). Furthermore, as shown above, I'd already compromised on this topic by having the lead label Muhammad as a spree killer first, seeing as he is even placed under that category in the Crime Classification Manual, but also having it note the debate among experts about what to call him (a spree killer or a serial killer). So why you felt the need to show back up after all this time (only "after all this time" if you weren't also this IP who kept getting reverted[1][2][3]) and revert back to "serial killer" while rewording the hidden note and removing the reference is perplexing to me...other than you wanting Muhammad to be defined as a serial killer first and foremost. I've had the lead label him as a spree killer first because, like I stated, he fits that definition more accurately than he fits "serial killer." But I am obviously willing to compromise. Are you? We could refrain from definitively defining him as a spree or serial killer in the first line, and simply let the "Although" line and/or a section on it take care of this. The "Although" line could be tweaked to include "spree killer," going like this: "Although the pairing's actions were classified as psychopathy attributable to serial killer characteristics by the media, whether or not their psychopathy meets this classification or that of a spree killer is debated by researchers." Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Misleadingly "Islamic" feel to article due to questionable source material

Regarding this sentence near the beginning of the article: "Drawings by Malvo describe the murders as part of a "jihad" (Arabic for "struggle in the way of God")."

I think this is very misleading, (1.) because the the style and some of the words expressed in the source material are scarily Islamophobic, and further sources are not given in that linked article to make it seem authentic (2.) The article implies the drawings were made by John Muhammad's partner after the incident and while in prison. By not including these facts in the sentence AND putting it in the very beginning of the article, it gives John Muhammad too Islamic of a flavor that he didn't even claim to have or want, at least as far as I can tell from all the other information as well as what we have already proven to know on the talk page.

To keep the information we have in there now, it NEEDS a better source than the one provided. Notice my changes in the history that were revoked. I included a line that the information was subject to media biases, and it was removed basically saying that the fact that the source was biased is not information given by the source itself.. Okay, I understand... But let's find a better source about Malvo's drawings, until then I propose that the "jihad" reference be removed entirely, or, at the very VERY least, as supported in the reference, it should be mentioned that these drawings were supposedly found after the fact and not before, and this should be moved to elsewhere in the article. Otherwise, at it stands, it is very misleading. Sawyer207 (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that John Allen Muhammed (J.A.M.) be merged into Beltway sniper attacks. The biography article of J.A.M. falls under WP:BLP1E & WP:PERP. J.A.M. is primarily notable for the series of events that are the subject of the article Beltway sniper attacks. The size of Beltway sniper attacks, is slightly greater than 50k, which is below the size that would require a sub-article per WP:LIMIT. The size of the J.A.M. article is slightly greater than 30k size; merging the J.A.M. article into the Beltway sniper attacks would not exceed the size prescribed in LIMIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:MERGE, I am notifying the involved WikiProjects of these two articles of this proposal, and leaving this notification per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose because, due to the articles and books that focus on this person and/or his killing partner (Lee Boyd Malvo), there's a lot more that can be added to this article; such additions, because there's not much to state that wouldn't be more about the Beltway sniper attacks, would be analysis of Muhammad's thinking and behavior. Whether or not he fits the criteria of a serial killer or spree killer (or a even a combination of the two), which is touched on in the lead, is an example. And there's very likely a lot more to be written in such vein (thinking and behavior) about him and Lee Boyd Malvo in the future (yes, I know about WP:CRYSTALBALL). To me, if a merge is desirable, it would be better to merge the John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo articles together (under the title John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo). Why not propose that the Lee Boyd Malvo article also be merged? Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I would support a merger of Lee Boyd Malvo as well per WP:BLP1E & WP:PERP to the Beltway sniper attacks article. As they are only the felons who have been convicted of the event which is the subject of the Beltway sniper attacks, and they are primarily notable for the subject of that article, BLP1E and PERP apply to both. Both their articles can be summarized, and merged. If even after summarization, content is expanded, a Sub-article can be recreated with the name suggested by Flyer22.
I will tag that article as well. Thanks for the idea.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Those articles may not follow the guideline WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP and might be good candidates for merger to the article of the event. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST just because some articles don't follow relevant guidelines or essays, doesn't mean other articles shouldn't.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Malvo Shooting helped get us into the Iraq War...

The single biggest accidental effect of the Malvo shootings gets ignored by everybody. The Senate debate on whether to go to war took place at the same time. War was declared on October 11, 2002. The Malvo shooting spree dominated the headlines and pushed the war debate completely off the front page of most newspapers for the entire debate. The last chance to oppose the war was lost in a sea of headlines screaming "SNIPER !!!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.41.105 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read the talk page guidelines. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Reason for killings

I was just made aware of this tonight, since his wife told the story at Mizzou's (University of Missouri, Columbia) campus tonight. (thurs. sept 30, at 7pm) The reason for the killings is because he was after his wife. He had kidnapped their three children, and lost the trial for custody. He then decided to go after his wife. He proclaimed that he was innocent the whole time. The day of his execution hsi children asked to speak with him, but he never contacted them, and the execution went on that night. It was later revealed the reason he didn't speak to his children is for fear of being asked the question 'why?' because it would've broken him and the facade he put up to stay confident in his belief of his innocence would have crumbled.

Nobody knows definitively what the motive was, except for John Allen Muhammad (who is dead now). However, his wife is mentioned as a possible motive in many sources, and it sounds like a plausible one. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Allen_Muhammad/Archive_1&oldid=1136847604"